tv Your World With Neil Cavuto FOX News January 2, 2019 1:00pm-2:00pm PST
it was almost even. it's down about 30 points. if it's not down 400 these days, that's good. "your world" with neil cavuto is next. >> neil: all right. it's crazy markets got you down? there's a pill for that. here's the thing. it's going to cost you. prices on hundreds of prescription and other related drugs are set to soar this new year. industry defiant besides a president who wants to bring them down. i'm neil cavuto. want to thank my friends and cold leagues, trish and connell for filling in when i was out, which is why i rushed back. happy new year. you just might need a pain reliever after hearing this report. we have more on the big hikes coming whether you like them or not. tracee?
>> good afternoon. as of january 1, more than three dozen pharmaceutical companies raised their prices. the average drug maker raising prices by about 6.3% this year. that's according to an analysis by rx savings solutions. the biggest increases, 133% on pain reliever zingo. in and ketamine went up 20%, a blood pressure medication. the "wall street journal" reporting that allergen is raising prices 9.5%. now, following some criticism from president trump last year, pfizer will be phasing in an increase of 3.29% on january 15th. this after president trump tweeted pfizer and others should
be ashamed that they have raised drug prices for no reason. pfizer temporarily halted price increases but now all bets are off. pfizer will raise prices on 41 of its prescription drugs. while the increases happen every year, these affect list prices. so almost no patient pays these prices because they don't take into accounts insurance or rebates. still people we spoke with say they're not happy. >> it's terrible. >> i suffer from food allergies. i have an epipen on me. it's pricey. >> it's not full price control but there needs to be some regulatory pricing. >> we want our lucky one. >> neil, pharmaceutical prices expected to get a lot of
attention from democrats this week when they retake the house. >> i'm sure. tracy, thank you very much. these price hikes come defiantly from a president who has been warning them not to do it. but they did. remember this? >> prescription drug prices are going to come tumbling down. we will no longer accept the inflated prices being charged to seniors. >> drug companies a number of months ago were going to raise their prices. i called up the heads of pfizer and novartis and others. i said you can't do that. you can't raise your prices. you know what they did? they brought them down. they didn't raise them. >> well, today they raised them. so what does that say about whether they're intimidated by the president or doing a run-around the president? mattie, what do you think? >> this is a response to what is happening in washington. drug companies are looking at the new year and recognizing that democrats are in charge of
one chamber of congress and the president in his administration have been saying some things that democrats would be wildly happy to accept. things like importing foreign price controls, getting the federal government to intervene to tell what they can charge. drug companies are in no way a sympathetic character. the problem and challenge with drug pricing is this conversation in washington about mandate ago cost and a price doesn't take into account how much it cost to produce a drug. we remain one of the most innovative ecosystems to create drugs. you need an environment where companies can hold on to intellectual property and innovate in that space. unless they can make money doing that, there's no way that moves forward. a hard balance to strike. unfortunately i don't think we've seen a lot of leadership as to how to strike the right balance while keeping the prices down and innovation alive.
>> gary, this was a highlight on a few drugs. when said and done, it's going to be over 100 medicines. in some cases, some blood pressure treatments in excess of 30% increases. what do you make of this? >> all of these companies have paid big dollars to some political people to work at those companies to take the temperature of the political winds. i do believe they see a president that lofts the house, which is going to investigate him and now even though it's january 19, we're already starting the re-election campaign. the president has more things on his plate. they decided that they can do this and get away with it without any repercussion. i do believe they forgot that the democrats have taken over and i suspect there's going to be some pretty loud voices as this moves forward. just remember, these companies are not doing this by accident. they have sat in the board rooms and decide we can get away with
it for now and we can take it back if the times comes. >> neil: you have to be careful what you wish for. now you have a democratic house that will make hay of this. having said that, there does seem to be a trend among major corporations that are defying the president, whether it's g.m. laying off thousands despite the president saying don't you dare. they dared. you know, certainly what you saw with harley-davidson shipping jobs overseas when the president i was shell shocked on that news. we're seeing signs of, this i'm wondering what's going on. >> i would argue it's not the appropriate role of a president to create policy through tweeting or calling up ceos to try to lambaste them for decisions he doesn't like. i said i would like to see the administration to continue to focus efforts on creating competitive ecosystems here in the united states. that's tax reform. building on the successes could ameliorate all of these other situations you just described. to talk about drug prices, as
you mentioned before, this is a hedge. these company look what's coming down the pike and what is possible for them. with democrats in control, you know sure as heck they won't repeal the obamacare takeses that raise the prices for drug company. they're trying to build in some cushioning as you look into a new year and know that they're not getting reprieve from the regulatory onslaught that has been exploited. >> neil: for these company defying the president, oftentimes they pay for it dearly in the markets. they stabilize sometimes. not all the time. what is your sense of what happens here or whether this is just noise and to matty's point, it's not the president's job to interfere in these commerce matters even though it's deemed to be beneficial to the consume consumer? >> i complained for eight years of obama targeting industry and individual companies. i'm going to do the same with the president. it's not his position to do
that. companies are supposed to act in their own best interests for their business employees and the shareholders. if they want to lower prices, raise prices, shutter a plant, move a plant, they should do whatever they want to do and let the market bear itself out. trump says he's a free market guy. let the markets be free and businesses be free and we'll be better off in the long run. i can promise you, if they raise drug prices too high and unfortunately medicaid will pay for it no matter what, but if there's enough yelling and screaming and shouting by politicians and the people, they'll have to bring them back down again. as far as the harleys and the g.m.s, let them be. if they have to raise prices, fine. if the market doesn't bear it, it will come back down. >> neil: the prices of morphine has gone up 10% with this money today. thanks very much. i do want to see what's happening on the white house here.
we're waiting for some of the democratic and republican leaders attending a pow-wow extending this partial government shutdown and what if anything they can do to find some accommodation on this wall or whatever you want to call it. ahead of that, kevin kelly and sarge is here. what do you think will happen? how big a deal is this? >> for investors, it's not a big deal. we go through this regularly. the people out of work end up getting paid back pay. it's a nice vacation. they weren't allowed to spend the money while they were on vacation. how it impacts the market. i call them heat seeking missiles, zombie markets. this only impacts the day traders. you'll see the 400, 500 point swings based on the headline. >> neil: what if it drags on awhile? some workers say i get paid later. the contractors won't get paid
at all. does this escalate i don't know what you fear? >> i would not be worried for a while, for maybe two or three, four more weeks. as an investor. i'm not talking about a contractor that has a deal. as an investor, it doesn't concern me yet. as a trader, presents opportunity and hazard. >> neil: this was deemed to be noise because the markets much more worried about a slow down in global growth, worried about the chinese hiccupping. what is your morery meter when it comes to this partial shut down? >> the government is 75% funding. that's why it's considered noise. the markets are trying to figure out where interest rates go from here. that certainly will affect one of the largest input costs. the cost of capital, cost of financing. the president certainly has taken his shots at the federal reserve. this government shut down both sides are sort of applausing it because they're digging in their tranches for the 2020 election.
75% is funded. every day people are going to work and seem like it's not impacting consumers in any front. >> neil: and we're coming off a holiday season that was gang busters. >> one of the best we've seen since six years ago. to every one's point, when a government shut down happens, it doesn't have that much impact on the markets. the biggest one was in 2013. the market went up 3.1% during that period. >> neil: what if this drags on? >> from the consumer spending standpoint, the volatility has a macroimpact. when you see the whiplash and it drags on further, the consumer gets hesitant and that's when they don't want to start spending again. >> neil: the other view on this partial shutdown, the idea that it's about more than the government shutting down or staying open. much more about who has the power and who has the influence.
if the president can be stymied, that could be a concern for the markets. what do you think on that front? >> certainly from a confidence standpoint, we're going into a treacherous period. hetha brings up the consumer spending. people will be shell-shocked as they get to tax season, get the bills from the holiday season. there's going to be i feel some kind of slow down in the first quarter. i think we're headed for an extremely rough three to six months. >> neil: really? are you in that camp? >> the first quarter is seasonally weak. we've seen that in this instruction -- >> neil: what about the next year? is it down? >> actually data is mixed on that. >> neil: it is. >> very mixed. depends -- >> neil: this is weird because we had ten straight years -- >> we never had a december like we had before. we had a december that was down
14% in one point. i remember christmas eve, i was flabbergasted in that half trading session. i was seeing a sea of red. then we wake up -- >> neil: and that was steve selling everything. >> actually it was the fed taking the liquidity out of the economy. >> how it can impact the markets, the capitol markets. some people at the sec are furloughed. that's the interesting point. so ipos can't be happening in the first quarter. you're getting a delay -- >> companies with initial offerings. >> yes. >> neil: and the core is the consumer. i'm not minimizing all these other stuff going on. but if he or she is still confident enough to spend, the question only becomes how long are they inclined to do so. >> looking at the consumer
confidence data, it's down. we've seen an upwards trajectory number. to see it come down is concerning. with that said, the labor statistics about people applying for unemployment benefits, there's less people applying for those unemployment benefits now than the month before. so it's really a bifurcation of the consumer -- >> neil: fancy. the president had called what happened in december a glitch. what did you think? >> it's not a glitch. you have two transactions happening one buyer, one seller and the sellers won out. so that's not a glitch. that was real money moving hands. i think it's important to note that when we look at the consumer -- >> neil: so the president viewed this as an aberration, move on. >> yeah. it's not an aberration. the market was reacting to real-time news as it was happening. the market is a forward-looking
indicator. indicating that things won't get better in 2019 due to the fact that -- it's predicated on commodities. they're down. look at the price of oil. if we have a booming economy, oil -- >> we'll have a slightly single digit year. we'll get -- >> i think we're heading into treacherous territory. i watch the consumer pretty closely. i think this is -- the volatility having an impact. >> i'm bullish the second half of the year. energy stocks are the lows. let's hope they are. i'm at 39% cash. >> neil: really? the high for you cash-wise? >> 46% was the high. >> neil: higher than last year? >> that's right. >> neil: i've not been below 30% since last january. >> yes. >> neil: thanks. we have rand versus romney.
[ crowd cheers ] like everyone, i lead a busy life. but i know the importance of having time to do what you love. at comcast we know our customers' time is valuable. that's why we have 2-hour appointment windows, including nights and weekends. so you can do more of what you love. my name is tito, and i'm a tech-house manager at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. >> neil: all right. the door is still closed outside
the white house. a lot of people are wondering how long the shutdown will last. the president is meeting with members. blake burman has more on how it's going. blake? >> hi, neil. we're not tip toeing into 2019 at all. there were two high profile meetings today. one of which we believe is still going on inside the situation room with president trump and congressional leadership meaning it would be the first time since this partial government shutdown started 12 days ago that the president and top democrats, until and chuck schumer would meet. the white house is billing this as a border security briefing. >> all of this is to tell chuck and nancy and others from ice and from border patrol and also from some local law enforcement how bad it is, how dangerous it is and why we need a wall. but they know that. >> those comments coming from
the president earlier today in a cabinet meeting which played out before the cameras for about 100 minutes or so in length. it served as well as another outlet for the up to pitch the need to have more than $5 billion to put for a border wall. >> they're not 2.5. we're asking for 5.6. somebody said 2.5. no, look, this is national security we're talking about here. we spend in afghanistan more in one month than what we're talking about for the wall. >> that's the message out of the white house. remember, neil, a seismic shift as democrats take over control of the house of representatives. nancy pelosi has already come forward presenting her game plan saying that democrats are going to pass a couple measures, one of which would take the 25% of
the government that is partially shut down, fund it for the rest of the fiscal year, through september, while also funding the department of homeland security through february 8 so that that issue involving border security and the wall could be dealt with over the upcoming few weeks. once that is eventually passed and there's no indication that it wouldn't be passed, it would put the pressure on this white house and the senate, which is run by republicans. >> neil: they want -- the democrats have the president square. seems that they're not going to give an inch. i'm wondering if either side overplays their hand. >> you have to wonder when this could end. democrats, you're right, they're not giving an inch. they're saying no new money. we heard from mick mulvaney saying there was an offered made for somewhere in the $2.5 billion range. you saw from president trump said it's not 2.5.
we're asking for 5.6 billion. that's what the last house controlled by the republicans passed. but the democrats are offering this right now for new wall money. there's a pretty big gap and you have to wonder, neil, what will close it and when. >> neil: the when part is interesting. thank you. meantime, we're awaiting the arraignment of the illegal immigrant suspected in the killing of a california police officer. that is about to happen very, very shortly. robert perez is here on that and more after this. i am not for colds. i am not for just treating my symptoms... (ah-choo) i am for shortening colds when i'm sick. with zicam. zicam is completely different.
unlike most other cold medicines... ...zicam is clinically proven to shorten colds. i am a zifan for zicam. oral or nasal. uh uh - i deliverberty the news around here. ♪ sources say liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. over to you, logo. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ - [voiceover] this is an urgent message from the international fellowship of christians and jews. there is an emergency food crisis
>> neil: house republican kevin mccarthy is talking to reporters now after this summit at the white house. >> we have a crisis on the border right now. we had a violent mob rush yesterday. we know we have a challenge along the border. we want to solve this issue and open this government up. at the end of the day, the president listening to him, he wants to solve this as well. that's why he's asked us to come back friday after the leadership races to try to get this done. >> [question inaudible] >> i'm a little disappointed with i'd say some on the other side. they wouldn't -- once the secretary started, schumer interrupted her and didn't want to hear it. they challenged the points the secretary made. we were hopeful we could get more -- i know the vice
president had sat down with senator schumer, had given him paper, had worked to try to come to an agreement to find common ground. i hoped we would get more of that today. hopefully friday we'll get there. >> [question inaudible] >> doesn't have to last much longer at all. i think we can come to an agreement quickly. i know that's why the president thought maybe after the leadership races people would be more willing to come to an agreement. >> will there be compromises on both sides? >> what did -- you said senator schumer interrupted the secretary. what did he say? >> i think they wanted to go on without going through the briefing. they wanted to go on with their bill that they were bringing up tomorrow. the president has been very clear that not the bill he would support. leader mcconnell said he's not bringing anything up that won't
become law. >> the president is also made it clear that his number 1 responsibility is to keep this country safe. secretary nielsen wanted to go over some very alarming numbers, things that are happening at the border and what happened last year. last year alone, there were 3700 suspected terrorists that were stopped from entering the country. a lot of bad things happening. the bill we passed in the house -- >> neil: no real progress there. you're seeing the fact that republican and democratic leaders in the house and senate have met with the president. no progress on the border wall or border security measure or reopening the government after it's been shut down for 12 days. along comes the next story we're monitoring closely in los angeles. gustavo perez arriaga, the illegal accused of killing a california police officer, he is being arraigned in court today. let's go to the deputy commissioner of u.s. customs and
border protection robert perez. sir, very good to have you. obviously this comes back to at its core security, safety and had there been a better method of protecting our border, the argument was this guy would have never gotten in. he did and he killed an officer. so when you see this back and forth, it must just seem like political noise to you. >> thanks for having me, neil. look, what happened with this officer absolutely tragic. our hearts go out to the department there, their families, loved ones. it's an unprecedented challenge that we face at the border. a national security challenge and a humanitarian challenge. unprecedented numbers, the most vulnerable, the family units entering and trying to enter our border illegally. and being exploited by criminal organizations that will take
advantage of these again very vulnerable populations, bring them on our journeys to our border and oftentimes abuse them along the way. it is, again, an ongoing challenge for us at customs and border protection and our ice colleagues as well as we continue to try to defend and to secure the border. >> commissioner, you know the president wants a wall. he's proposed $5.6 billion as a down payment on this continues wall. democrats are not budging. is it your sense that this is going to drag on for quite a while hence the problems that you're addressing at the border drag on for quite a while? >> what i can tell you, neil, is that a wall system and/or barriers along the border work. we've saw that play out decades against in san diego and yuma where attempted illegal entries were reduced by 90% once we erected the physical barrier.
what we're seeking to build and already building. in fact, we erected over 35 miles of replacement border wall along the southwest border is a system, a system that has both primary and secondary barriers, has roads and access points for our agents to respond and technology embedded within the wall itself. what a barrier does is not only will deny access for those who will attempt to enter illegally and cross the border in that way, but it will also impede folks from getting through and allowing agents to respond. >> neil: commissioner, thank you very much. nancy pelosi is addressing reporters right now. they don't seem to be making much progress. >> this is an oath of office we take to protect and defend. it's very important to us. we have committed resources to it when we were in the majority
and continue to do so. >> so the bottom line is very simple. we asked the president to support the bills that we support that will open up government. we asked him to give us one good reason, i asked him directly, i said, mr. president, give me one good reason why you should continue your shutdown of this eight cabinet departments while we're debating our differences on homeland security. he could not give a good answer. so we would hope that they would reconsider and would support the very bills that passed the senate, four of them 92 to 96, two of them unanimously in the appropriations committee with mitch mcconnell's support. the only reason they're shutting
down the government is very simple. they want to try and leverage that shutdown into their proposal on border security. we have -- we want strong border security. we believe ours are better. to use the shut down as hostage, which they had no argument against is wrong. we would urge them respectfully to reconsider and support these bills, which are bipartisan, one of which mitch mcconnell proposed, open up the government as we continue to debate what is the best way to secure our border. >> you see it lasting long? >> we hope it doesn't. we hope they won't use the american people, the middles that depend on these departments and the workers that are either
not working or not getting paid as hostages to have a temper tantrum and say it's our way or no way. they couldn't give us an answer why they wouldn't support the first bill that leader pelosi and leader -- speaker pelosi and leader hoyer will put on the floor that will open up the government. >> let me add this. almost everybody in the room, i don't want to say everybody, believes that shutting down government is a stupid public policy. it puts 800,000 people who work for the federal government at risk and puts millions of people that rely on the federal government on a daily basis at risk. we're going to propose tomorrow a bill that has gotten the support of the senate and the house. >> the white house says it's a nonstarter. so why move forward?
>> that's our responsibility as a co-equal branch of government, to do that which we think is right. >> will he compromise? >> we hope he will compromise. we're for border security. we're also for operating the people's government in an effective fashion. >> the bottom line is very simple. in our last meeting, the president said i'm going to shut the government down. they're now feeling the heat. it's not helping the president, it's not helping the republicans to be the owners of this shut down. today we gave them an opportunity to get out of that and open up the government as we debate border security and to say to them because he says he won't sign it and use the government as hostage we should just give in? the american people don't want that. that is bad for our country and that's not the way to govern. >> we're asking the president to
open up the government. we're giving him a republican pass to do that. why would he not do it? why would he not do it? >> neil: all right. not much progress there. you heard from republicans and democratic leaders on this lack of progress they seem to have made on this border wall, whatever you want to call it, this $5.6 billion the president wants as a down payment on that. the democrats have no more than 1.3. so now with us is kentucky senator rand paul here to talk about this and more. senator, very good to have you. >> thanks, neil. >> neil: what do you make of this and how long the government could be shut down because neither side seems to be budging? >> well, you know, there is a big danger that the government shut down and no one notices. in the past, the shut downs have
always been, a lot have been with the democrat president and they do everything possible like closing down overpasses and empty parking lots, closing down the world war ii memorial. this time they're not doing that. so it's not as noticeable. plus, 75% of the government is funded. so there's a chance that nobody notices. it's not a good idea. but the democrat's possession is zero dollars nor the wall. every one of them voted for $25 billion for a wall last year. so certainly there's some kind of compromise to be had. the president is asking for $5 billion. the democrats are zero. certainly somewhere in between the two there can be a compromise made. >> neil: this occurs on the same day that mitt romney, former presidential candidate and incoming senator from utah took
pen to paper and had an editorial in "the washington post" criticizing this president and his ethical leadership. what did you think about that? >> you know, i think calling the president dishonest for senator romney to come into the senate and even before he's sworn in to call the president dishonest is not productive. i think it's going to backfire on him. i think there's going to be a backlash for conservatives across the country that say gosh, the president gave us two conservative supreme court leaders, the largest tax cut in 20 or 30 years -- >> neil: he did commend those efforts. >> then why is he out there calling the president dishonest? when you attack someone's ca character, it's a low blow and so -- it's not something like someone is going to change their character. he's called his character dishonest. that is a bad way for him to start in the senate. i think it's going to spoil relations between his
representation of utah and the president. >> neil: you said worst things when you run a against mr. trump for president. politics is politics. i understand that. you think i think there's a sophomore quality about mr. trump and his attacking people, small, short, ugly. that was in -- >> that was coming from a short guy running against him in the republican primary. no, i think things are different and the tenor is different when you're competing for the same office. i had some choice words and i still have choice disagreements with the president on occasion. sips he's been elected president, i try not to have personal character assassination or attacks on him and i try to work with him. i have still voted against the president. on a number of occasions. i'm one of the most independent voting republicans in the senate caucus and i choose not to go
after and try to drum up a personal attack on him, which i think is just not useful and in some ways sort of this virtue signalling. when romney wants to tear down the president's character, he's sort of puffing himself up that he's somehow so virtuous and above -- >> neil: what do you think he's trying to get? the reason why i mention it, john kasich, the former ohio golf has challenged the president for that nomination, endorsed romney's criticism of trump saying welcome to the frey. what did you think of that? >> the only thing that kasich could do if he decides to run as an independent is to try to be a spoiler and try to defeat the republican nominee, which in all likelihood would be donald trump. i don't see romney getting involved in presidential politics. he had his chance. didn't go well. people want republicans and think republicans are better than democrats. donald trump did something
extraordinary. he won ohio, michigan, pennsylvania. that's how he won. we shouldn't scoff at that and people try to denigrate and bring down the president. there's a lot of good things that have happened. that's what i try to spend my time on in the policies and one of the big things that this president will do that hopefully nobody haas done is declare victory in war and come home and the establishment is so petrified that we could win a war and the people would be ecstatic. our troops would be ecstatic and the money we would save. we spend $50 billion a year in afghanistan. some of the money could go toward the wall, toward a debt, building bridges and roads in our country. the foreign policy swamp of which i would include romney, they are just petrified that we could end a war. i'm absolutely all in with the president on this. if he can end a war, he will be
a hero that all the independents will look at as well as some democrats for finally being a president that ended war. >> neil: let me ask you, you let bygones be bygones and a lot of the personal back and forth ended and maybe upon his inauguration. you said he's my president and everyone's president. mitt romney doesn't feel the same way. he says he will take on the president when it comes to issues he cares about. commend him and compliment him when he sees things that he likes. what is it -- >> those two -- >> neil: those two haven't settled it. you and the president did. >> here's the problem. i get along fine with the president. i do have policy disagreements. if you look at the voting records. i'm more independent than any other republican in the senate. but yet i keep good relations with the president because i respect the office and the
office and i try to work with him to get things done for my country and the state. i don't know how it helps anybody's cause to stand up there like they're he lower than thow and how virtuous i am and i'm going to bring down the presidency by bringing down his character in front of the nation. it does nobody any good and in the end he's going to look petty and a backlash to this. >> neil: you think governor romney is phony? >> i think he's big a big government republican. he never liked reagan. in the 80s he was with the crowd that worried that reagan wasn't hawkish enough. remember when he talked to gorbachev and arms control -- >> neil: ronald reagan said, senator, everybody should
acknowledge the 11th commandment that no other republican should speak ill about the other republicans? >> i don't know if romney got the message. >> neil: did the president get the message talking about other republicans? >> the president dishes it out. when he gets it, he's not quiet. he dishes it back. that's his personality. the one thing act it for everybody wants to question -- >> neil: i don't see you doing that. >> i think there's plenty of people questioning that. i question him on policy. he knows i stood up to i'm he. i talked to him on the phone and he says i know where your principles are and i know you can't move on this vote. we still have a good conversation. i know it's different than attacking and going for the jugular of someone's character. so i think it's different. >> neil: so when you hear the back and forth with mitt romney and what he's doing, some have said he's setting himself up for a presidential reason.
hoping in the meantime that the president is so politically wounded that he's ripe for the taking. do you agree with that? >> you know, i sure hope not. if there were an election between donald trump and romney, romney would be wiped out. people ought to think about -- republicans ought to think about this big government, let's always be at war everywhere, republican is what we want, donald trump won by being different kind of republican, be by being a republican that says we're not going to waste our taxpayer dollars overseas. it's time for these people to take care of their own people and we won't pay forever. that was a tremendous breath of fresh air. romney is part of this crowd that wants to send our money forever to all of these foreign countries. they love foreign aid and war and they can't stand that trump might end a war. >> neil: thanks, senator. >> thanks, neil. >> neil: we got news on apple
after the bell. the stock is halted and already fallen 40% from its highs. when it reopened tomorrow, it will fall more. more after this. h type 2 diabets are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2,
or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you.
>> neil: all right. lots of talking, not lots of progress when it comes to this ongoing government shut down. edward lawrence has more. ed? >> they could be talking at each other, not with each other. you have senator chuck schumer in the senate saying that they took the opportunity for this meeting to ask the president to support their bills, which will pass tomorrow if everything goes the way nancy pelosi would like out of the house. the president had asked them to come back friday, work together starting friday to come up with some sort of solution or compromise. what will pass tomorrow should nancy pelosi become house speaker, which we expect will happen, a series of bills that will fund the federal government through the end of the fiscal year except for the department of homeland security.
that will be funded through the 8th and talk about border funding related to that there's no extra money for border wall funding. both sides dug in. neil? >> neil: thanks, edward. as edward is pointing out, this all started over funding for a wall. has anybody shared with you a far bigger wall that both parties are ignoring? and to our detriment. this is a wall that we all have a stake in and no one, no one is addressing it. we thought of high time that we should and we will. right after this. i can't tell you who i am or what i witnessed, but i can tell you liberty mutual customized my car insurance so i only pay for what i need. oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ i thodid the ancestrydna toian. find out i'm only 16% italian.
>> neil: i am out a few days and i knew you'd be missing me. well, what a wonderful holiday. i had not missed seeing you on any of your stupid shows. was that you your christmas gift to me? yes, it was. you are welcome. teresa in new york city. i know you get a lot of grief for just being you, perfectly justified. i miss it when you are aware and hope you're well. otherwise i'll just chuckle as i find you a silly, nondescript little man. i have never been called little.
so that's okay. "i'm sure you were home celebrating stocks taking so you can blame it on trump." the one good thing is it makes neil cavuto poorer. eat it, pancake head. i have never heard that before. this from jersey joe who writes in rhyme. "there wasn't was a guy named neil who i thought was just a heel. forever carping about things that have to do with money, even though i never find his musings on our president funny. so he's alive or there's not much we can do. hoping he's forced to retire because his bosses wise up and say you are through." all right, what's the difference between -- down payment on a wall and billions more in government
programs for down payment on your vote. nothing really. but the republicans say they are concerned about border security or democrats just as adamant about what they call middle-class security. their goals might be different. but not the math they share. which is to say no math. both parties share a desire to spend money we do not have. here's what's really the problem. neither party really cares and they both conclude that you don't either. that's why they keep doing it. what else could explain democrats tripping over each other promising everything from free college for altered free government checks for life. or republicans pushing more money for defense because they say our security is at risk, all the while ignoring the financial hole they dig deeper. that puts everyone's security at even greater risk. priorities are one thing. refusing to think how you will pay for them, it's quite anothe another. no one really cares anymore and that's the problem.
finally a politician, any politician in any party, who worries about all of this spending. i am betting a politician who is not worrying about running for president of the united states. that's too bad. all of the spending is very bad and i mean it's getting really bad. we are likely to spend $1 trillion more than we take in this coming year and the year after that and the year after that and the year after that. right now, we are nearly $22 trillion in the hole, and that hole is getting deeper. with interest rates rising, more expensive. states aren't really much better off. many spending money they don't have with questionable municipal bond payment schemes and scams they shouldn't even offer. but they do, convinced it's easier to sell the goodies didn't ever consider scaling back on those goodies. heaven forbid. spending is sexy. debt is dull. we will happily shut the
government down over 5 billion bucks for a while while ignoring the trillions of dollars we keep piling up in ious that have us hitting a wall. my friends, that's the real wall. good luck finding any politician to climb it or even acknowledge it. i just don't buy it. i really don't. i think if you want to stand out today as a politician, you have to separate yourself from a crowded field when it comes to spenders in both parties. you have nothing to lose but an election but what an impact you could have on the country. forget about hurting you. i am betting such moxie would actually help you. you will stand out first thing that the buck stops here and so does the bowl. that logic matters. honesty matters. math matters and concern for generations to come, that matters more. that matters more than anything. spending only what you have matters. setting our priorities and how you pay for those priorities matters. what is at his politicians
refusing to level with us that all of this spending is about to level us. because it's not on them. it's on us. they are not paying for those promises. we are. what they are not doing anything to clean this up. they are doubling down. you know what's really galling about it? they know it. they know it. they are happy to keep doing it again and again because they are so convinced we just want stuff that we'll never look at the crazy math they tell us that we we are the ones getting stuffed because we don't, so they do. convinced it's easier to keep us hooked on spending money we don't have than simple logic we don't use. not because we are stupid. but because they are convinced we are. and here's the real killer. these guys were for us and let's start demanding accountability from them so the next time one of them tells you the things you want to hear, do politely ask the financial details they don't want to share. we were those who do.
you have nothing to lose. but your country. good night. ♪ >> greg: i am greg gutfeld with dan bongino, marie harf, jesse watters, and kennedy. "the five" ." well, that didn't last long. on january 1, mitt romney, a man so stiff you could iron a shirt on him, that is the president and "the washington post." remember that? you know the drill. trump is rude. he lacks character and so on. could have been written on january 1, 2018 or 2017 or 1517. if the definition of insanity is complaining about something that will never change, mitt has made